It seems to be a modern attitude of many that concepts such as quality can be determined relative to the individual. Music, for example, is often deemed “good” or “bad” based on the likes or dislikes of each individual, or simply determined to be beyond judgment. In education, the quality of an education is sometimes made relative to the needs of the students. But upon considering judgments such as good or bad based on likes and dislikes, or quality based on the need, it is not difficult to conclude that ethical judgments as well as degrees of quality cannot be defined by likes, dislikes, or needs.
The quality of music is ubiquitously and infamously subjective, so goes public opinion. But this is not the case. The quality of anything cannot be judged subjectively and be taken seriously or with any kind of authority. In fact, the subjective judgment of anything becomes nothing more than opinion. Quality is a concept that can be measured objectively, and as such quality is not subjective. This applies easily to such things as tools, cars and buildings, but not so easily to things such as music. However, transcendent “things” such as music can be measured qualitatively. It is a farce, a cop-out to say that “good” music is a matter of opinion. It is not.
A piece of music can be qualitatively measured first by how it does its job. A piece of music’s job is to convey an idea and/or create an atmosphere, to invoke emotion seamlessly without any added intention of the listener. In other words, a good piece of music is much like a good novel or story: the listener (or reader) is taken in by the act of listening (or reading) without intending to be taken in. A good piece of music invokes emotion without the help of the listener: it “just happens”. Nothing “just happens”. A good piece of music will convey an idea clearly enough to drag a listener into one or another state without depending upon the will of the listener. Musicians tend to understand this better than non-musicians because they have a deeper understanding of how music works, and what to look for in good or bad music. It must be taken into consideration, however, that there are also “good” and “bad” musicians. A “good” musician is one that first, has musical ideas that are inventive and original, and second that is able to portray those ideas in the clearest sense possible. A “good” musician is able to portray emotional and intellectual ideas in such a way that is both clear and concise musically speaking.
“Good” music is music that one listens to, and is taken in by it without having to understand. “Good” musicians are those that understand how to write and perform such music. Often times, musicians can hear a piece of music and understand what is trying to be portrayed while at the same time understand that the emotional and/or intellectual concept is not actually being portrayed. Technically, it is easy enough to hear harmonic movement and be able to recognize what the composer was trying to achieve. If the composer does a “good” job, the harmonic movement is not recognized per say, but is weaved into the whole, as words are weaved together to create a story. If the composer does a less than “good” job, then the harmonic movement (for example) is actually recognized separately from the whole rather being simply a part of it.
The same can apply to recognizing different degrees of quality. As pointed out before, quality is easily enough recognized in material things, but less so in immaterial things. Nevertheless, quality can be recognized objectively. Education, especially higher education, is often defined by the needs of the students that make use of institutions of higher education because it is those students that are at least in part responsible for funding higher education in the first place. Defining the quality of higher education on the needs of the students, however, does not necessarily mean that such an education is quality, but merely useful. A quality education is not much different than a piece of quality music: a good education is one that is used without recognizing it as being so. This is not as convoluted as it may sound.
First, education is not simply learning how to perform an act, and perform it well. In its simplest form, education is a process that allows individuals to think for themselves, makes decisions based on the use of rational thinking rather than guesswork or emotion, and to be able to tell the difference. Education is a process that allows individuals to learn. This definition is not inclusive in the so-called, determined, and recognized “needs” of most students. Rather what most students, many administrators, businesses, and even a lot of teachers claim is that the “needs” of the students “must come first”: often meaning: give the students what they want. This is not quality education. It is rather cow-towing to the populace.
Secondly, good education is not what most people might want, but it is certainly what we all need. A good education allows one to solve problems, yes, but not only problems that pertain to things such as sales, marketing, or performing acts. A good education allows one to act rationally rather than react emotionally. A good education allows one to invent, originate and progress rather than copy, vary, and stagnate. In short, a good education teaches one to think: independently, rationally, originally, and for one’s self. The more an education allows the individual to do the above things, the more quality an education the individual has received. A quality education can be measured by recognizing the independence, ability, and originality of thought of any one or group of individuals. This recognition is not, and cannot be integrated into any mission statement, value judgment, or economic plan. Recognition of a quality education is only possible if one has had a good education.
Like the trained musician recognizes what a composer tried but failed to portray in the most unrecognizable way, the educated person knows precisely what a good education is through recognizing ability not to perform acts or make money, but in the simple act of thinking. To claim that such a simple act is not a worthy goal, or capable of being judged qualitatively is a sure sign that the claim is originating from an unworthy authority not capable of recognizing qualitative differences. Furthermore, the subjugation of quality by defining it as subjective is at best the start of a useless education and at worst the waste of quite possibly a good mind.
Search This Blog
